Electric FR-S by TGMY

[RS2]

I just wanna cry when I see this... just plain horrible. The day that electric or hybrids cars will be accepted. When I'll die of old age and I'm only 22 years old.


No matter what, when you want a electric car,well we all know your not a man...
Even worst a electric sports car... I don't understand it. I'll go buy a remote control racecar if you want one leave it at that... Please!!!!



Petrol engines all the way



Petrol engines maybe put 40$ everytime you fill up. What happen electic cars any check how much money on there electic bill? For a difference cause it sure it ain't free nothing is free. Just a little question if someone don't mind awnsering? Thanks

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by Tigranakert

Just so you guys know, all this hybrid electric BS doesn't make sense. I rather burn coal in my car, then someone burning coal to make electricity and then using electricity. Making electricity at its best systems is like 7% of its original energy. Who actually ends up doing more damage?

You are wrong. Burning coal in a large facility that runs at a steady state with a huge focus on efficiency and pollution controls is far better than burning it directly in your engine. The typical ICE operation is 15-20% efficient while Coal power plants is closer to 40%. Plus it's been shown that Electric cars are cleaner and more efficient than Gasoline power cars from well to wheels.

Meet Greet.

Originally Posted by Hachivic

It's cool but i still love the smell of petrol and exhaust making noise more.

That's nostalgia talking. The smell of Petrol is carcinogenic and the exhaust is the sound of wasted energy. Some people grew up with R/C cars probably feel the same for electric motors if they stuck with electric instead of going nitro.

I like the sound of a nice ICE exhaust but I kind of like the idea of a quiet but high pitched whine from an AC motor too.

[Tigranakert]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

You are wrong. Burning coal in a large facility that runs at a steady state with a huge focus on efficiency and pollution controls is far better than burning it directly in your engine. The typical ICE operation is 15-20% efficient while Coal power plants is closer to 40%. Plus it's been shown that Electric cars are cleaner and more efficient than Gasoline power cars from well to wheels.

for that answer. I can elaborate for you.

15-20 percent efficient from the original 100 percent. Then that 15-20 percent has to go through cable lines into central power stations, and the resistance of the cable only passes 90 percent of the electricity. Then at the Central power stations, another 10 percent is lost as the electricity is distributed. Then from there, the power goes to the local stations that look like cylinders on the poles. That's 25 percent efficient.
For the 20 percent, .20 x .9 x .9 x .25 is approx 4% efficient at the end.
For the 15 percent, .15 x .9 x .9 x .25 is approx 3% efficient at the end.
That's just to get the power to your house and not counting the efficiency of the car, but whatever it is, the power loss to just get it to your house is 80%.

Now when you say focus on efficiency and pollution controls, I want to know what you mean? The gunky paste they get as waste from coal has not found a use yet. Where does it go? There is no clean coal production! It is like saying Americans Recycle bins actually recycle. They don't. It is just thrown into a seperate place, but the waste is still there and growing. When you take colorful glass bottles to recycle, most of it never get recycled, because it requires more energy to recycle it than make a new one from scratch.

[Mobius357]

Originally Posted by Tigranakert

for that answer. I can elaborate for you.

15-20 percent efficient from the original 100 percent. Then that 15-20 percent has to go through cable lines into central power stations, and the resistance of the cable only passes 90 percent of the electricity. Then at the Central power stations, another 10 percent is lost as the electricity is distributed. Then from there, the power goes to the local stations that look like cylinders on the poles. That's 25 percent efficient.
For the 20 percent, .20 x .9 x .9 x .25 is approx 4% efficient at the end.
For the 15 percent, .15 x .9 x .9 x .25 is approx 3% efficient at the end.
That's just to get the power to your house and not counting the efficiency of the car, but whatever it is, the power loss to just get it to your house is 80%.

Now when you say focus on efficiency and pollution controls, I want to know what you mean? The gunky paste they get as waste from coal has not found a use yet. Where does it go? There is no clean coal production! It is like saying Americans Recycle bins actually recycle. They don't. It is just thrown into a seperate place, but the waste is still there and growing. When you take colorful glass bottles to recycle, most of it never get recycled, because it requires more energy to recycle it than make a new one from scratch.

Where oh where did you get these numbers from? First, that 15%-20% you quoted was for combustion engines, not coal plants. Coal plants are 37%-44% efficient according to This study. And combined cycle natural gas is 50%-54%. The total transmission and delivery loss in the US is around 7% Here This gives us a final efficiency for coal at 34%-41% and 46%-50% for natural gas. Brushless DC motors are typically 85%-90%.

Now. I love the sound of gas and diesel engines, but they don't hold a candle to DC motors in terms of power delivery. Maximum torque at 0 RPM, nearly flat torque curve though much of it's operating range, and able to produce high peak power beyond it's continuous rating. The major downfall is power storage. Gasoline has a vastly higher energy density than the best batteries, and manufacturing lithium batteries is pretty dirty business. There's also charging time, 10 hours to charge vs 5 mins to fuel up. Electric cars really aren't practical for most people just yet.

[fistpoint]

Weight distribution is now 80/20 probably...awesome!

[Allch Chcar]

Originally Posted by fistpoint

Weight distribution is now 80/20 probably...awesome!

I know you probably don't realize this was in the original link so I'll point it out for you.

Originally Posted by http://www.carsales.com.au/news/2012/sports/toyota/86/toyota-86-ev-running-at-suzuka-33518

...drawing power from a rear-mounted 37kWh lithium polymer battery pack.

A 75kw electric motor doesn't weigh that much. But I wish I had more info, maybe I'll email them later.

[fistpoint]

Originally Posted by Allch Chcar

I know you probably don't realize this was in the original link so I'll point it out for you.



A 75kw electric motor doesn't weigh that much. But I wish I had more info, maybe I'll email them later.

I read that, I was just being opinionated. I very much dislike electric vehicles.

[SubieNate]

Lots of stupidity in this thread.

It costs about $2 for enough electricity to send a Model S ~60 miles. That beats every gasoline or diesel on the road.

In many states, the carbon footprint for electricity generation is minimal. Here in California, we have large amounts coming from wind, solar, and hydroelectric power with the balance coming from natural gas. All of these are clean, and most are efficient (Solar is super inefficient but the energy available is huge so it sometimes works out well).

Electric motors can absolutely stomp ANY internal combustion engine when it comes to hp/lb, efficiency, and torque delivery. As an example, I worked with these motors in a conceptual design my senior of college: http://www.yasamotors.com/technology/products/yasa-750h

That motor puts out 201 peak HP and weighs 55 pounds. You can put two of them in place of a differential in the rear with a direct linkage to the axles and they will absolutely haul ass. 400 peak HP out of 110 lb of motor. And they can do it all day, every day.

For reference, let's look at an LS3. (Source: http://www.ls3crateengine.net/) 430 lb and 430 hp. That's a 1:1 hp/lb ratio from a VERY good engine. In comparison, the YASA electric motors put out 400 hp and weigh 110 lb. That's 3.63 hp/lb, which is 3.63 times the power/lb the LS3 can put out. Anyone who argues with that being a good thing is very foolish.

The downfall of electric cars is energy storage. If we had a way to store energy at even half of the specific energy and energy density of gasoline, and had a way to "fill" that storage as quickly as a gasoline tank, we would very quickly see a shift in the world's transportation paradigm. Even the best tech that's available right now limits the range and takes too long to charge to use as a realistic replacement for a gasoline car, especially if it's the only car you own. When that tech becomes available, I will gladly drive a 400 hp, light weight, 400 mile range electric car to work every day. And my penis will be no smaller (or larger) for it.

Look. I love IC as much as the next guy. Working on them is fun, they sound great, there's something very visceral and primal about using thousands of explosions per minute to propel you down the road. But petroleum is a limited resource and smog is a real problem even with today's engine technology (Just ask anyone who lives in LA), regardless of global warming. That shit's not healthy to be breathing and it makes the air literally ugly to look at.

If we want to continue to enjoy our enthusiast cars, our sports cars and classics and everything in between, we need to encourage the world to do everything it can to find alternative solutions. Because as China and other countries start using more and more of the world's petroleum, it's just not going to be sustainable.

All the negativity in this thread reminds me of a bunch of rednecks complaining about Japanese cars. "We don't need dem Jap crap cars, we've got our chevy trucks, 'Murica!" It doesn't make you cool or manly. Just ignorant.

Cheers
Nathan

[Tigranakert]

Originally Posted by Mobius357

Where oh where did you get these numbers from? .

UC Irvine Electrical Engineering Book that my teacher had when they held a study...
Information might have been older, but I still don't trust the government's information. They are all in the money making business. Well actually lets not go there.

With Newton's laws, we know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. From that, burning something to make energy will give a certain amount of energy and a certain amount is lost. Now from that, turning the energy into electricty and bringing it with loss already uses more energy than just straight burning it...

[SubieNate]

Originally Posted by Tigranakert

UC Irvine Electrical Engineering Book that my teacher had when they held a study...
Information might have been older, but I still don't trust the government's information. They are all in the money making business. Well actually lets not go there.

With Newton's laws, we know that energy is neither created nor destroyed. From that, burning something to make energy will give a certain amount of energy and a certain amount is lost. Now from that, turning the energy into electricty and bringing it with loss already uses more energy than just straight burning it...

Negative.The number of steps it takes for the energy to get to your wheels for gasoline or electric power cannot be simply compared to choose the more efficient option. The efficiency of every step in the process needs to be considered. The gas turbines in our natural gas power plants here in the states operate at an efficiency that our cars cannot even dream of reaching. (60% for combined cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle, the best internal combustion engines reach MAYBE 30% http://tinyurl.com/c7v57jc)

Also, if you take into account the amount of fuel burned by the ships, trains, and trucks that are needed to bring gasoline to your local station and the energy spent on the refining process (Natural gas pretty much just needs to be bottled, gasoline is complicated to produce) the balance shifts even more in electricity's favor.

Gasoline is not an efficient means of transportation. It is a convenient means of transportation.

Cheers
Nathan

[Tigranakert]

Originally Posted by SubieNate

Negative.The number of steps it takes for the energy to get to your wheels for gasoline or electric power cannot be simply compared to choose the more efficient option. The efficiency of every step in the process needs to be considered. The gas turbines in our natural gas power plants here in the states operate at an efficiency that our cars cannot even dream of reaching. (60% for combined cycle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combined_cycle, the best internal combustion engines reach MAYBE 30% http://tinyurl.com/c7v57jc)

Also, if you take into account the amount of fuel burned by the ships, trains, and trucks that are needed to bring gasoline to your local station and the energy spent on the refining process (Natural gas pretty much just needs to be bottled, gasoline is complicated to produce) the balance shifts even more in electricity's favor.

Gasoline is not an efficient means of transportation. It is a convenient means of transportation.

Cheers
Nathan

That's completely true, but I would like to stay with my info on this bit. 20 percent of the original energy is left from where you originally bring it, to all the way to your house.
I don't think trucks burn 800 gallons of fuel on the way to the gas station and back where if they had 1000 to begin with...

[SubieNate]

That 20% figure is patently false.

http://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=105&t=3

So 60% efficient power generation * 93% efficient transmission = 55% efficient to the outlet.